State v. Pool

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Pool

443 S.W.3d 44, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1043, 2014 WL 4694877

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 2014

DocketNo. ED 100347

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 443 S.W.3d 44 (State v. Pool) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Pool, 443 S.W.3d 44, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1043, 2014 WL 4694877 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terrón Pool (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury for one count of second degree murder, in violation of Section 565.021, RSMo 2000,¹ and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 575.015. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life on the murder count and thirty-years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action count, to be served concurrently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terrón Pool (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury for one count of second degree murder, in violation of Section 565.021, RSMo 2000,¹ and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 575.015. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life on the murder count and thirty-years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action count, to be served concurrently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 S.W.3d 44, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1043, 2014 WL 4694877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pool-moctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack